Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:34:02 +0100 From: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> To: =?windows-1251?Q?=CA=EE=ED=FC=EA=EE=E2_=C5=E2=E3=E5=ED=E8=E9?= <kes-kes@yandex.ru> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-rc@frebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding setfib support to rc.d/routing Message-ID: <4F1918EA.7000803@fsn.hu> In-Reply-To: <1667449136.20120120091533@yandex.ru> References: <4F190F3F.7050302@fsn.hu> <1667449136.20120120091533@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Здравствуйте On 01/20/12 08:15, Коньков Евгений wrote: > Здравствуйте, Attila. > > Вы писали 20 января 2012 г., 8:52:47: > > AN> Hi, > > AN> Having multiple routing tables is a very nice and (was a) long awaited > AN> capability in FreeBSD. Having it since years is even more cool, because > AN> we can assume it's stable now. > AN> But not having infrastructure support for it sucks, this makes people > AN> hacking with rc.local or various scripts in various places. > > AN> There is a(t least one) PR about it: conf/145440, which proposes a > AN> standard method for setting up different FIBs in a seems to be logical > AN> way, which is compatible with the current single routing table method of > AN> static_routes. > > AN> Are there any objections about this PR? Is there something we can do to > AN> get it committed? > > I have a patch > http://kes.net.ua/softdev/fib_patch.html That tries to solve a different (the next one if you like) problem, and there is(are?) a PR for that too, with a similar approach. The above PR is about creating static routes for different FIBs, which is the first step.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F1918EA.7000803>